Debates of Sept. 27th, 2011

Safe Streets and Communities Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with this particular bill is that the government has made a decision in its wisdom to say that it wants this, this and this. Those are all pieces that should have been separate pieces of legislation so that when the government brings forward individual pieces of legislation there is more legitimacy to the debate on the issue and the law that it is attempting to change.

There are many things that we could be doing in terms of amendments to the refugee and immigration laws.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration recognize that there is so much more that could have been done had this been a stand-alone bill, which would have enabled all members to have a better engagement on what is a critically important issue across this country? In fact, there needs to be dialogue with provinces? Some provinces have actually made significant advancements on protecting the workers. Would the hon. member not agree with that?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the point the member is making. I compliment him on his appointment as critic for the third party at our citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism committee. I look forward to working with him on that committee.

The member understands. He was here for part of the 40th Parliament when we introduced and passed Bill C-11, Balanced Refugee Reform Act and Bill C-35, the crooked consultants act, two pieces of significant legislation. In fact, I would argue that, aside from our budget, Bill C-11 was the most significant piece of legislation that this Parliament passed in the 40th Parliament. That legislation arrived in this House after second reading, went to committee, came back for third reading and was passed unanimously by the House.

I can let the member know that we have lots in this bill that we want to pass. We have passed quite a bit with respect to citizenship and immigration. There is a lot more to come.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is very much a rural riding. In that riding, from one end to the other, we have the great use of the temporary foreign workers programs. It is so significant and so important to our farming community, whether it is apple orchards or greenhouses. I have been to a number of those farm operations. The care that these operations provide for their temporary workers is just immeasurable, quite honestly, and they are the ones I want to compliment.

However, these operators are also concerned about those who do not have protection. They want to ensure that, when a bill goes through, it will actually offer protection so that no foreign worker is being exploited. Would this bill fulfill that need?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to this issue, time and again the member has come to speak to me about the good work that the employers in his riding are doing and about the importance the put on the treatment of foreign workers in his community.

I want to assure the member that from a department perspective we will continue to work at that. As a government, we show support to those employers who want to follow the rules and ensure that this program works but for those who do not they will pay substantially for it.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to participate in the debate on Bill C-10, the Conservative government's omnibus crime bill. Sadly, I only have 10 minutes to make my remarks, which is wholly inadequate for offering an in-depth analysis of each section of the 110 page bill.

However, since this is second reading, the stage in a bill's passage during which all members are charged with providing feedback to the government on the principles of the legislation before us, I am confident that I can at least do that within the allotted timeframe.

I will begin by stating what ought to be obvious. All members in the House, regardless of political party, agree that serious crime requires a serious response. There is absolutely no debate here. However, we also need to remember that the iconic statue of justice holds a scale in her hand for a reason: justice requires balance. It is that balance that is lost in the bill that is before us today.

My NDP colleagues from Windsor—Tecumseh and Vancouver Kingsway have already articulated the fact that the bill puts wedge politics and ideology ahead of facts and evidence. It is a point that bears repeating.

It is absolutely true that we have three years of evidence now to prove that the violent crime rate in Canada is falling dramatically. We also know that there is not a single empirical study in Canada, or any other democracy for that matter, which proves that incarceration is an effective deterrent.

On the contrary, by imposing mandatory minimums on young offenders and therefore sending them to jail for longer periods of time, we will be creating more recidivists, not less. A government policy that turns young offenders into hardened criminals surely must be seen as completely undermining the goals of any criminal justice reform.

Equally absurd is the part of the bill that mandates less jail time for a child rapist than someone being charged with growing pot. The omnibus legislation would impose a one year mandatory minimum for sexually assaulting a child, luring a child via the Internet or involving a child in bestiality. All three of those offences carry lighter automatic sentences than those for people running medium sized grow-ops in rental property or on someone else's land. A pedophile who gets a child to watch pornography with him or someone who exposes himself to kids at a playground would receive a minimum 90 day sentence, half the term of a man convicted of growing six pot plants in his own home.

I do not think there is a single constituent in my riding of Hamilton Mountain who would agree with either that approach or that outcome. However, that is what we get when, instead of looking at the Criminal Code as a whole, exploring reforms systematically and ensuring that the same sentencing principles are applied in all sections of the code, we have a government that simply lumps a whole bunch of pre-election promises together in an act of political expediency. Ideologically, the government may want to be seen as being tough on crime but effective criminal law reform requires us to be smart on crime. Bill C-10 fails that test completely.

The Canadian Bar Association would concur with my assessment. The association made a specific comment on the minimum sentencing provisions of the bill by pointing out that they fail the mentally ill, aboriginal people, visible minorities and the poor. Mandatory minimum legislation will simply clog the courts and fill Canadian prisons with vulnerable segments of the population. As a result, the Bar Association is calling on the government to reverse course and to allow judges leeway in applying mandatory minimums so that they are not imposed when it would be cruel or inappropriate.

The CBA is spot on. It leads me to ask my Conservative colleagues why they are so intent on imposing a straitjacket on Canadian judges by so aggressively pursing mandatory minimum sentencing. Justice requires the ability to differentiate between similar offences when they are committed under completely different circumstances. I am not saying that judges are perfect. They are human and might on occasion make mistakes. However, they enjoy the confidence of the vast majority of Canadians. They are highly educated and highly trained and, therefore, are much better equipped to determine appropriate sentences than any of us here in the House. I suggest that we allow them to do their jobs.

There is a particular irony in the timing of the proposals contained in the bill with respect to mandatory minimums. While I appreciate that their genesis lies in the tough on crime and drugs approach adopted decades ago by the United States, the Conservatives are choosing to emulate that agenda at precisely the time that it is being discredited south of the border, even by Republicans, as an exorbitantly expensive failure.

I will begin with the obvious. I want to reiterate the succinct statement made by my colleague the member for Kings—Hants:

If putting more people in prison for longer periods of time created safer communities, American cities would be the safest in the world, because nobody incarcerates more people than the Americans.

U.S. conservatives are now recognizing their folly. Even Newt Gingrich, the right-wing Republican former speaker, is on the record now acknowledging that longer prison terms have not been effective deterrents. In an editorial to The Washington Post he wrote:

Our prisons might be worth the current cost if the recidivism rate were not so high, but, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, half of the prisoners released this year are expected to be back in prison within three years. If our prison policies are failing half of the time, and we know that there are more humane, effective alternatives, it is time to fundamentally rethink how we treat and rehabilitate our prisoners.

He then went on to praise Texas as a state that has reduced its prison population while keeping the public safe. He wrote:

Several states have shown that it is possible to cut costs while keeping the public safe. Consider events in Texas, which is known to be tough on crime. Conservative Republicans joined with Democrats in adopting incentive-based funding to strengthen the state's probation system in 2005. Then in 2007, they decided against building more prisons and instead opted to enhance proven community corrections approaches such as drug courts. The reforms are forecast to save $2 billion in prison costs over five years.

The Lone Star State has already redirected much of the money saved into community treatment for the mentally ill and low-level drug addicts. Not only have these reforms reduced Texas's prison population - helping to close the state budget gap - but for the first time there is no waiting list for drug treatment in the state. And crime has dropped 10 percent from 2004, the year before the reforms, through 2009, according to the latest figures available, reaching its lowest annual rate since 1973.

Canada should heed the experience south of the border and it should heed the advice of Gingrich, who himself entered into this debate primarily because of the exigencies of rising budget deficits.

Here in Canada, we appear to be on the brink of another recession and instead of investing in people and jobs, the Conservatives announced that they are seeking $4 billion in annual savings. Clearly, the government is not seeing the forest for the trees.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is estimating that this new crime bill could double the annual prison costs from $4.4 billion to $9.5 billion in five years. That is an increase of $5.1 billion, while they are looking for savings of $4 billion in program costs elsewhere.

I would urge the government to put this question to Canadians: Do they support the doubling of prison costs at the cost of reduced benefits in other programs? Or would they rather see that money continue to be spent on health care, job creation, employment insurance, adequate pensions, and education for their kids?

I think the Prime Minister knows the answer and that is why he is not going to the Canadian people to offer them that choice. Instead, he is paying a private consultant $90,000 a day to find savings in other programs just so he can pay for his ideological priority of building more jails. It is absolutely absurd.

Let me end where I started. I talked about the scales of justice and their symbolic call to all of us to strive for balance. I would therefore be remiss if I did not acknowledge that there are parts of this bill that I do support.

I do support the initiatives to protect children from exploitation including sexual assault. In fact, two of the new offences that this bill targets came from NDP private members' bills relating specifically to communicating for the purposes of luring a child. As I said before, we part ways when the government's solution focuses simplistically on creating additional mandatory minimums.

I also agree with putting victims rights into law. I would argue that this is long overdue.

I supported legislation in the last Parliament that blocked Karla Homolka from getting a pardon.

However, the additional changes proposed to the pardon system in this bill are neither rational nor evidence-based and they fail to put public safety first. That, to me, must be the basis for evaluating the entire omnibus bill. Failing that test, I cannot possibly vote in favour of the current bill.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague is aware of a recent article by Mr. Peter Blaikie who is one of the founding partners of the well-known Montreal law firm, Heenan Blaikie, and a former president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. In an article on August 2 in The Gazette he stated:

A civilized, effective system of justice should have two overriding objectives: to protect society, perhaps forever, from the truly dangerous and, while punishing the others, using every possible effort to rehabilitate them, turning them into productive citizens. The government’s approach, in effect and almost certainly in intention, reverses these objectives. It is all stick and no carrot. It even abandons the highly successful, self-sustaining, century-old program of prison farms, which taught generations of inmates critical life skills.

I would like her comments on this.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, when people actually start to look at the legislation, it is incredible how many are astounded at the lack of balance in the omnibus crime bill.

The member is absolutely right. It is always delicious in the House when a member quotes another Conservative and I appreciate him doing that. It is perhaps one of the more fun moments that we get to enjoy in this place. However, it is an important piece of legislation and we should not make light of it.

The reality is that this bill does nothing for the victims of crime in terms of preventing crime from happening in the first place. If we are serious about wanting to help victims, we have to ensure they do not get victimized in the first place.

I would have liked to have seen provisions for expanded programs to deal with mental health issues, poverty, and all of the root causes of crime. Of course, none of that is in there. Instead, we are downloading prison costs to over-burdened provinces that cannot possibly deal with the additional demands that are made on their prison system.

As I said at the outset, there is absolutely no balance in the bill.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while I understand the political jousting that consists of vilifying the opposition by saying it plans to vote against certain parts of the bill, I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on this bill's general approach. It seems to pit victims and offenders against one another, as though each of these groups could not find within a bill any essential elements to improve safety.

I feel as though the government is creating a false sense of security with this bill. On the one hand, by imposing minimum sentences without coming up with any solutions to rehabilitate offenders, once those sentences are over, we will be no further ahead.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right, there is nothing in the bill that talks about investments in rehabilitation.

As I said in my speech, all of us in this House, no matter which side of the floor we sit on, believe that serious crimes must be dealt with seriously. There is absolutely no disagreement. We all want our communities to be safe communities. However, let us look at the crime statistics. We know that crime has gone down over the last 20 years successively. That is true both for property crimes and for things like murder and assault.

The member is absolutely right to point out that what we need to do when we are dealing with the criminal justice system is to, first of all, deal with it holistically. We need to ensure that we deal with both the criminals and the victims in a way that is fair, that allows for rehabilitation in our prison system, and that we are not just adding cost without any benefit in creating a better justice system.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have enough time for one brief question and one brief response. The hon. member for Sudbury.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing we have been hearing over and over when it comes to everything else that the government talks about is cost. The Conservatives talk about it being costed in their election platform and costed here and there. However, there is absolutely nothing coming from the Conservatives that relates to the cost of the bill. Our justice critic has put the question to the minister and we did not get an answer. I would like to hear the member's comments.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sudbury was here in the last Parliament when the Conservative government actually denied us access to the costing of its previous round of crime bills.

We know that prison costs are up 86% since the Conservatives took power. By 2013-14, the federal prison budget will almost double to over $3 billion. This evidence exposes a real question of priorities. If the government is belt-tightening everywhere else, why is the opposite true here?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-10, Safe Streets and Communities Act.

Hon. members will know that over five years ago our government made a promise to Canadians. We pledged to keep them safe and secure.

This bill builds on the work our government has already undertaken to more fully hold offenders to account for their actions and to stand up for victims.

Victims have always been central to our government's crime reduction agenda. With that in mind, I would like to devote my remarks today to discuss a very important component of Bill C-10 which deals with victims of terrorism.

The threat of terrorism is a reality for Canadians. It is not a distant concept or something that only happens in far corners of the globe.

The reality is that terrorism can happen. It has happened right here on our soil and Canadians can be, and are, also targeted by terrorist organizations when they are living, working, and travelling in other countries.

Since September 2001, 195 Canadians have fallen victim to terrorism. This year, on the tenth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, we remember the 24 Canadians killed that brutal morning.

In 2002, two Canadians were killed in the Bali bombings. Another individual killed by terrorists in Indonesia that day was my friend, Peter Record, a 32-year old British citizen. Peter was like any typical Canadian. He liked the outdoors, he enjoyed a pint of ale, but instead of hockey was a big rugby fan. Peter and I worked together in Hong Kong, and on that tragic day in 2002, he was vacationing in Bali when he was killed by a bomb. For me, this is a striking reminder that a terrorist attack is not something that only happens to the friends and families of others. Indeed, this is a global threat and Canada must do its part to protect its citizens.

In 2003, a year later, two Canadians were killed in the bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad. A Canadian diplomat was killed in Afghanistan in 2006 in an attack on a Canadian convey. Two years later, in 2008, four Canadians were killed and injured in the Bombay attacks, and another two Canadian aid workers were ambushed and killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

In 2009, an explosion in Kandahar City claimed the life of a Canadian journalist. More recently, in 2011, two Canadian citizens were killed in a café attack in Morocco. One hundred and fifty seven members of the Canadian Forces have been killed combatting terrorism while serving in the Afghanistan mission.

To this day, terrorism continues to threaten the lives of innocent citizens in Canada and around the world. A number of international and domestic extremist groups are present in Canada. Some engage in terrorist activities here or support terrorism beyond Canada's borders. Some have worked to manipulate or coerce members of Canadian society into advancing extremist causes hostile to our nation and our nation's values. Terrorism is a serious and persistent threat to the security of Canada and its citizens.

This government is committed to protecting Canada from terrorism and keeping its citizens safe in their communities. Ensuring the safety and security of all Canadians is a commitment our government takes seriously.

The bill before us today is another important initiative to strengthen our country's national security network.

Bill C-10 would complement our exiting counterterrorism measures by deterring terrorism, responding to the needs of victims of terrorism and demonstrating Canada's leadership in acting against the perpetrators and supporters of terrorism around the world. Indeed, Bill C-10 would constitute another important instrument in our efforts to deter this global threat.

I would like to take this opportunity to provide members with an overview of the provisions contained in Bill C-10, which pertain to victims of terrorism and explain how our government proposes to respond to their needs.

To achieve these goals, Bill C-10 would allow victims of terrorism to sue, in a Canadian court, perpetrators of terrorist acts and their supporters, provided the victims could demonstrate a real and substantial connection between their actions in Canada.

Specifically, Bill C-10 would allow victims of terrorism to file a court case against perpetrators of terror, such terrorist entity listed under the Criminal Code, or other persons or organizations that carried out a terrorist attack. In addition, a legal case could be brought against individuals, entities or listed states which provide and support to a terrorist entity.

If the loss or damage occurs outside Canada, there must be a real and substantial connection to this country. This legislation would be retroactive to January 1, 1985, in order to allow victims of terrorism to seek redress for loss and damage that occurred as a result of a terrorist act committed anywhere in the world on or after that date. Allowing victims to terrorism to sue for past events would send a message to perpetrators and supporters of terror that Canada would hold them liable for their actions.

To allow for legal action against listed states, Bill C-10 would amend the State Immunity Act to lift the immunity of states that were supporters of terrorism. Lifting a state's immunity is a decision that cannot be taken lightly, as it may have significant impacts on Canada's international relations, interests and foreign policy.

This bill would create a robust mechanism for determining whether a foreign state should be listed as a supporter of terrorism. The Governor-in-Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety, would be able to add a state to the list if there were reasonable grounds to believe that the state supported, or had supported, a terrorist entity listed under the Criminal Code.

Using the list of terrorist entities under the Criminal Code is an adequate criterion to justify the listing of a foreign state since the Criminal Code list is determined through a rigorous analytical process. There are currently 44 listed entities.

Let me assure members that the government will take all the appropriate precautions to minimize any potential negative impact on Canadian trade, or foreign relations or threats to Canadian personnel, interests and citizens abroad when listing and delisting states.

Bill C-10 would also establish a review mechanism to ensure the timely removal of states from the list if they were determined to no longer support terrorism. Here, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety, would review the list every two years to determine whether a state should remain on the list and whether other countries should be added to the list.

Also, a listed state could apply to be removed by submitting a written application to this effect. Once this application was received, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Public Safety would decide whether there were reasonable grounds to recommend to the Governor-in-Council that the state no longer be listed.

Bill C-10 would do more than just create a cause of legal action for victims of terrorism. It would also allow plaintiffs who had received a judgment in their favour to request assistance from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Public Safety in identifying and locating in Canada the property of a foreign state against which a judgment had been rendered. Such assistance would have to fall within the mandates of those ministers and would be provided to the extent reasonably practical, unless doing so would be detrimental to Canada's interests.

These provisions would strike a balance to allow the Government of Canada to help victims in real and tangible ways, while safeguarding Canada's standing in the international community.

Finally, Bill C-10 also calls for the recognition of foreign judgments by Canadian courts in favour of victims of terrorism.

Bill C-10 is yet another indication of our determination to give victims not only a voice, but legal means to seek justice against those who caused them harm. This is the latest tool in our growing arsenal to deal with the threats of the safety of Canadians both here at home and abroad.

I urge all hon. members to support Bill C-10 in order to provide justice for victims and punishment for terrorists perpetrators and supporters of terrorism.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech and ask him a question.

I am aware of the work that he did previously as the president of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. One of my biggest concerns about Bill C-10 is the fact that we do not know how much it will cost the provinces. We do know that the bill will cost the federal and provincial governments a significant amount of money, particularly because of minimum sentences.

Can the hon. member give us an idea of how much will be covered by the provinces and how much will be covered by the federal government, and can he tell me what he thinks of a government that cannot give us an answer in this regard?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question does not really address the issues I have raised today, but let me touch on it nonetheless. It is clear there is a cost to society when crime is allowed to happen and is not deterred. Our government is simply taking steps to reduce crime thereby saving society money.

I will touch on the comments by the Minister of Justice earlier today. It is ironic that the only time the official opposition seems to be concerned about spending initiatives is when it comes to the protection and safety of Canadians.

Regarding this aspect of Bill C-10, this measure would give rights to the victims of terrorism to seek help or redress in the courts. This is not an area that will end up costing the Government of Canada huge sums of money. We are acting to facilitate victims of terrorism so they can seek justice in our courts for what happens here or around the world.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is in a similar vein to the previous one. I know the member is an economist, but he also used to work for an organization that took every opportunity to be against higher government spending in favour of lower taxes.

Bill C-10 involves higher government spending, not the usual kind that is explicit and honestly stated, but hidden government spending. We have a situation where it may be $3 billion, or $10 billion or whatever numbers of billions of additional expenditures on prisons and the government refuses to give us any idea of what that additional cost is.

I have nothing against most of what the member said in terms of the ability of victims of terrorism to sue, that does not even cost much money, but the overall bill costs an unknown number of billions of dollars possibly ranging into tens of billions. Therefore, one might like something if it costs $1 billion, but not like it if it costs $12 billion.

How can the member possibly justify the government giving no information to Canadians on the cost of this legislation?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the group I used to work for, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, was primarily opposed to wasteful government spending, which is an altogether different thing than opposing all government spending.

On that note the member has a valid point. For example, the long gun registry sounded like a great idea when we were told it would cost $2 million, but when the price tag hit $2 billion, suddenly Canadians no longer agreed with it. The member is correct. Governments can waste money and often do.

Again, when it comes to the bill, documents were tabled that outlined some of the costs, but we also want to step back here. The Minister of Public Safety has pointed out in the media that his own department thought some of the provisions we enacted would increase the prison population to 16,000 when it had gone to 14,800. By getting tough on crime, it is the repeat offenders who are serving time in jail longer as opposed to us locking up more and more Canadians, which seems to be a concern of the opposition.

This is a reasonable bill, which addresses the concerns of Canadians. Yes, there is a cost to it, but there is a greater cost to society when government sits back and allows crime to happen without it being punished.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, The Environment; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, Poverty.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the sweeping omnibus crime bill tabled by the government will have one clear result, and that is thousands more will be incarcerated, billions more will be spent on prisons and aboriginal Canadians will be most at risk.

This “jail everyone” policy shift contradicts testimony by experts and sound recommendations from countless national reviews on how to reduce the number of aboriginals committing crimes or who are the victims of crime.

While only 3% of Canadians are aboriginals, they constitute 22% of prison populations, nine times the national average.

I cannot even hear myself speak, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The member for Edmonton—Strathcona has the floor. I am sure that members will be interested to hear. It is difficult to do that when there is so much noise in the chamber.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not appreciate the caustic comments coming back at my request for consideration.

This policy shift to jail everyone contradicts testimony by experts and the sound recommendations from countless national reviews on how to reduce the number of aboriginals committing crimes or who are the victims of crime. While only 3% of Canadians are aboriginal, they constitute 22% of the prison populations, nine times the national average. In 2008, one in four people identifying as aboriginal was in provincial or territorial sentence custody. In Nunavut, prisons are so crowded prisoners are sent away from the community to serve their sentences. They are dislocated from any community support. The long-standing housing shortage in Nunavut may soon be perversely solved through expanded jails.

Yet only 2% of the federal prison budget is spent on aboriginal programs. While the Canadian Human Rights Commission decries the government's failure to offer rehabilitation for aboriginal inmates, the government continues to cut effective programs, including prison farms and healing circles.

National Chief Shawn Atleo has told us that aboriginal high school students are more likely to be incarcerated than to graduate. Aboriginal youth face a 14% unemployment rate. Aboriginal women suffer more than twice the rate of unemployment than non-aboriginal Canadians.

The Samson Cree first nation faces an unemployment rate of 53%, high levels of substance abuse, marked increase in gang activity, and among the highest rates of incarceration per population of any first nation in this country.

A task force of first nations, RCMP and government agencies examined the root causes and recommended a number of measures. At the top of the list was a youth centre to stream vulnerable youth away from the incubating of gangs, yet they were told the government does not fund recreation centres for aboriginals.

Aboriginal women make up a whopping one-third of women in custody. Federal correctional investigator Howard Sapers has reported systemic discrimination against aboriginal women prisoners. He has reported that they do not receive timely access to rehabilitation programs which hinders their community integration. Given the percentage of women imprisoned, that is likely having a significant impact on aboriginal communities.

Anyone who commits a crime must face justice, but is it not equally important to take action to prevent involvement in criminal activities?

As the majority of prisoners are released back into the community, and as the intended result of this legislation is to imprison more people, is it not important that greater attention be given to rehabilitation programming? Is that not important to reduce the risk of reoffending and thus reduce more victims of crime? Instead of building more jails, why not invest more in education and job creation for aboriginal Canadians?

Aboriginal people are also victims of crime and deserve informed, effective strategies to protect their communities and their streets.

According to Statistics Canada, in 2009, 37% of aboriginals age 15 or older in the provinces have suffered violent victimization compared to only 26% among non-aboriginals. Twelve per cent of aboriginal people have been victims of violent crime compared to 5% of other Canadians. In 2009, 67,000 or 13% of aboriginal women reported being a victim of one or more violent crimes. The number of aboriginal women reporting incidents of spousal violence was two times more than non-aboriginal women. The number of missing and murdered aboriginal women continues to rise.

In assuming the portfolio as aboriginal affairs and northern development critic for my party, I have taken the time to review reports by the Auditor General. Sixteen reports over two decades have raised significant issues regarding the federal response to rising aboriginal health, housing, education and employment disparities. Aboriginal affairs reports that aboriginal people are four times more likely to live in crowded dwellings and in poor conditions.

Sheila Fraser advised that she was profoundly disappointed to note that despite federal action in response to her recommendations, a disproportionate number of first nations people still lacked the most basic services that other Canadians take for granted. In her words, “In a country as rich as Canada, this disparity is unacceptable”. She called for action on structural impediments to services. Nowhere in her report does she call for the construction of yet more prisons to address this disparity.

The government has committed, under the Canada-First Nations Joint Action Plan, to address disparities in education, jobs and governance. It is unclear whether similar commitments will be extended to Inuit and Métis Canadians. The question to ask is, what new fiscal commitments are being made to deliver on these promises?

The government has yet to table in the House the projected costs of the prison expansions needed under Bill C-10. It has also not yet revealed if there will be cuts to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. In the last budget the government cut support for the healing centres. As many provinces are facing significant deficits, the downloading of prison expansion costs will have implications for their programs, such as for addictions and fetal alcohol syndrome.

Alberta already has faced public displeasure over the decision to cut its restorative justice program. Municipalities are begging for support for housing. Sadly, a good percentage of the Edmonton murders recently are related to mental health and homelessness. One victim was murdered as he slept on a bench. He was slated to move into his first home the next day after 20 years of living on the street.

The situation in which far too many aboriginals find themselves growing up fosters criminal activity and abuse. Why not respond to the myriad commission reports calling for increased investments in housing, in youth programs, in schools, and addictions counselling, and reduce the probability of yet more victims of crime? Why not invest in programs that may provide a ray of hope instead of legislation and policies that merely entrench despair?

The Auditor General and many others have offered constructive measures. It is time for the government to respond.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member will no doubt know that the City of Edmonton is currently facing a murder epidemic. There have been 38 murders in the City of Edmonton in this calendar year alone, more than in any other city in Canada. I am curious as to why she and her party are opposed to the government's safe street and communities agenda, given that crime is out of control in the city in which both she and I live?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the murder rate in my city and it is reprehensible. What Edmontonians want is action by the federal government and all governments, including the police forces and all government departments and agencies to prevent more violent crime. It provides little redress to the victim of a crime that we are going to incarcerate somebody after the fact.

As I mentioned, there is the very sad case of a mentally troubled individual allegedly causing a fire in a building and causing the death of someone. A number of homeless people are being murdered on the streets as they are sleeping. This calls for a much broader response than simply locking people up on a minimum mandatory sentence.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very sensitive to many of the comments made by New Democratic members on this bill. However, in the September 21 issue of the Winnipeg Sun, I was quite surprised to read the NDP government's position on this bill. Gord Mackintosh, whom I have known personally for a number of years, stated that they strongly urge all parties in Ottawa to support this crime bill and to support it expeditiously. In fact, Mr. Mackintosh indicated that the bill does not go far enough.

Has the NDP government caucus in Manitoba had any consultation with the member's caucus as to what its position actually is on Bill C-10? Could her party share with the House what those costs might be, for example, in the province of Manitoba?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the members of my caucus who are from Manitoba regularly speak to their provincial counterparts. I would not deign to step on their toes. I am busy enough dealing with the Alberta government.

I cannot speak to the details on that question except to say it is a pretty broad-brushed question to ask what further can be done in all the provisions of the bill. My colleagues have been very clear on the parts of the bill we do support, and that is to expedite the provisions relating to the protection of children from pornography and assault, and in fact to hold off on measures such as mandatory sentencing for youth who might be caught with five marijuana plants.